This conversation is closed.

Work vs Automation.

Should we or should we not automate as much work as possible? With the current technological advances it wont be long before almost every existing job will/can be automated.

And from a capitalistic viewpoint it makes sense, why have workers when you can have robots that do the work faster, better and cheaper?

And do we really even want to "work" as it's defined today.

There will probably always be the need for humans, but to a lesser and lesser extent.

To get some insights into what's happening with automation today, check

And to see some of the jobs that were automated in 2013 read this article by The Washington Post "Eight ways robots stole our jobs in 2013"

Do you have a job that you think can't be automated or won't be in a long time? Are you "safe"?

  • thumb
    Jan 7 2014: Hi. Typo in you first line...fork instead of work.
    A somewhat Freudian 'slip' though, considering the 4-letter nature of the word 'work'. I want a robot doing my work, but I also want my salary. I think we'll outdo ourselves as regards automation but I don't think we'll be any happier. It's because we're almost not designed to see the joy in purposeful action and work. We see success, joy, and fulfillment in sitting and doing the absolute minimal for maximal 'joy'. Yet we never seem to find this joy when we escape action.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2014: Thanks for pointing to the typo!

      The part that you bring up about getting salary is a very important one, I'd solve it through Unconditional Basic Income.

      I think that we need to re-evaluate what brings us joy and fulfillment, I don't believe that it's the escape from action, rather doing the actions which you want to do. And most work that is done today is work that few actually want to do.
  • thumb
    Jan 12 2014: Universal equality before universal unemployment!

    If 'x' is employed and 'Y' is unemployed, is 'y' unemployed because of 'x' and to what extent is 'y' trapped by the restrictions imposed by 'x' in the maximization of gain, whose gain is gain in a progressive financial arrangement, will the universal brain take over before the machines do or have the machines already won?

    The devolution of power is a growth and development morality opportunity (maximize opportunities available) we should demand to stay afloat and should the Capitalist Titanic sink today or tomorrow or do you still think Capitalism is the only way forward?

    Should the availability of work be a human right to compliment the natural state of the global union? Can we convert 7 billion micro judicial lifespans into 7 billion opportunities to gain a reasonable standard of living?

    Who owns progress in the democratic future of shared equivalency of all action and non-action if equality is the natural equivalency of all rights in the literal translation of justice as a representation of all?

    Sorry I'm p*****!
  • thumb
    Jan 12 2014: It's ironic that capitalism will eventually end up producing the very kind of population it publicly despises (yet is privately dependent on) - one that is underutilised and reliant on handouts, whilst the income of owners of automated technology will be 'earned'.

    This is perhaps too simplistic, but is there an element of truth that capitalism is highly dependent on perpetuating the divide between the haves and the have nots? Is the long-term morality of an over-automated workplace therefore questionable? Where does the the very human 'pride in having a good job and doing it well' stand in all of this?

    I'm old enough to have been in many jobs that have changed out of all recognition by automation. I worked as a professional photographer for a long time, and what took many years of training and accumulated skill gained in the workplace, is now virtually translated as an iPhone app that anybody can use.

    I have long struggled with feelings of bitterness towards this kind of automation I have to admit. I for one would much rather produce, purchase and receive things I know were made 'from the heart and by hand' so to speak - rather than the press of a button.

    This sounds like the ramblings of a Luddite. But I have to ask - did they actually have a point? Has the servant become the master?

    I guess a safe job would be one related to the humanities, which (even though the pay is significantly less) is an area in which I now enjoy working. People and their sensibilities are more likely to be immune to automation, but even here, I sometimes see the mechanistic reduction of the human condition down to a mere collection of neurons and chemicals, I guess to make professional administration easier - and effectively translating that too, to that of an automated machine.
  • thumb
    Jan 8 2014: Absolutely, automation is far more efficient, economical and trustworthy than human beings.

    There are countless studies documenting the tremendous amount of lost productivity and needless cost incurred due to human failings. The robots and machines hardly ever miss a day or even a minute of work due to illness, hangovers, depression, grieving a lost loved one, accidents, pregnancies, missed the bus, car broke down, flirting with fellow workers, harassing fellow workers, taking a long weekend and so on.

    They don't care if they work all day or night long without a meal break, or a holiday, or bathroom break, or a vacation. Well, perhaps some maintenance down time then. They don't succumb to the peter principle of getting promoted until they reach their level of incompetence when an upgrade easily takes care of that. They don't abandon the employer for a better job or because they emptied the bank accounts and fled to parts unknown. They don't get disgruntled and sabotage their work or someone else's.
    They don't pilfer supplies, or stock or cash.

    The robots and machines do not need layer upon layer of supervisors, managers and sundry other middle management types taking up valuable space and costing excessive amounts to sustain. A few central processors strategically placed will suffice.

    From an owner's perspective, human beings in the workplace are still necessary, but few of them are worth their cost and we should be doing all we can to find other ways for people to occupy their limited time on this planet. One that is not so unproductive, expensive and wasteful as the workplace either.
  • Jan 8 2014: Work generally is not fun! And usually involves alot of procedure! Human minds will always find a way to automate procedure, I guess we are lazy or natures way to conserve energy and stress levels (another debate). But imagine if every thing that is basic was automated, food, travel, education, shelter, communication, etc, and the support of this infrastructure was automated, and even that support was automated and so on, what would be left with? Perhaps finally these basic things will be so cheap, hopefully free (economics of scale and no greedy corps), it might cure poverty and sickness even, but even if it doesn't, we are still left with our creativity, imagination which cannot (yet) be automated. Minds will be free from mundane tasks and people might be free to persue personal interests, handcraft to space exploration. I know this is idealistic but I dont have to think about going to a water well to get water, I just open a tap. My mind is free of finding water, now what would it be like if the whole world had the above mentioned basics automated, so many minds will be free to explore the limits of human knowledge rather than making ends meet.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2014: Yes, I fully agree!

      We're not meant to do these mundane tasks, our potential is so much greater than that!
  • thumb
    Jan 8 2014: Hmm to Luddite or not to Luddite that is the question. It is pointless to consider, any rational person wants to survive, technology increases ones survival. Maybe we can all go into politics? It always works out they were saying the same thing 100 years ago what with the newfangled electricity and oil and horseshitless carriages.
    • thumb
      Jan 8 2014: "Not to Luddite," if that is, indeed, the question!
    • Feb 5 2014: Technology does make it easier to survive, but what is it doing to our quality of life? is it taking away from our interaction with nature? putting us in a distracted mind instead of closer to the reality of the present moment?
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2014: "Technology does make it easier to survive"

        Lets consider that statement:

        If not for technology your life expectancy would be what? 40

        If not for technology you would not have cell phones, international travel, the internet, computers, abundant food, abundant water, space travel, orders of magnitude more knowledge, etc etc etc

        This is a natural dynamic of humans, putting us more in the present. This is an objective process that is very cathartic. You see the world evolves as well, saying this is not organic just isn't so.
        • Feb 5 2014: I agree, technology is playing a big role in our evolution, or is a product of our evolution. As long as we can have the will power to use it for the well being and harmony of our existence. My concern is that greed and ill will still seem to be rooted in our human conditioning, and with technology evolving the way it is, it can either cause much harm or much good, depending on the will behind it. I think we should focus on our evolution of deeply rooted intentions as a whole before improving technology to a degree we might regret.
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2014: Avarice won't make you a dime. I contend that very few rich guys that succeed focus on money.

        The purpose of a business is to fulfill the needs of a customer.

        The customer does not care how much profit a business makes, they care about what they get for their money.
        • Feb 5 2014: So many assumptions, and sadly all wrong at so many levels.
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2014: Spare me, comments are not arguments, you are not saying anything. Except that you are disgusted by my lack of respect for socialist ideas. So what?
  • thumb
    Jan 23 2014: Hmmmmm…. It gets me to thinking….. Why not automat politicians? Bankers? The entire financial market? Prostitution? In other words, automate those areas of our economies where corruption is rife.

    I could see the USA someday having a "robot president".
    • thumb
      Jan 29 2014: That's a fascinating point, Jim. Well, maybe not the robot president :) But the focus has been on low level jobs that could be done more cheaply by technology. How much does corruption cost us? That could be our next focus.
  • thumb
    Jan 11 2014: There are people for whom their exchange of labour for wages is their identity and gives them value, purpose and meaning. Many more are simply exchanging their labour for wages because they have to to survive. Others embrace the prejudice that those who are not exchanging their labour for wages had better be wealthy enough not to have to work, or they are 'fill in your own pejorative'. and valueless. In other words, somehow "jobs" have become the focus of our lives.

    But ask anyone on a pension and they will tell you that there are an infinite number of ways to employ our talents, skills and abilities than filling some 'job'.

    Meanwhile the majority of employers will continue to see employees as a cost factor, first and foremost, and will employ whatever technology they can to reduce that cost and eventually the employee for all the reasons I listed below.

    Automation has been happening ever since the assembly line was created and there is no stopping it. Time to move on folks.
  • Jan 9 2014: I believe what may matter is not the 'Should' or 'Should Not' but rather what IS.

    Our trajectory IS greater and greater automation which, in and of itself, is neither Good nor Bad.

    Perhaps the only way to 'deal' with this reality is by way of expanded Consciousness.

    I can't help but wonder if technology, and perhaps even automation itself, may ironically ASSIST in this expanded Consciousness. Perhaps we have just not fully seen it yet.

    I've found most insights are preceded by varying degrees of tension.
    The Method may transform into the Trap and the Trap may transform into the Method.
  • thumb
    Jan 8 2014: Doctors, scientists, developers, designers, these are all jobs that aren't good candidates for automation. Employers in these fields value intellect and experience over manual labor. These people bring value with their mind, their experience and interest in their field.

    Those jobs are a really good fit for human beings. They bring a stronger sense of fulfillment, because the person is working in their area of study and enjoys it. In turn the person is providing immense value to society. That's not to say someone working in manual labor isn't. But if laborious tasks can be automated, that relieves the need for people to step up to that duty. Then those people are free to step up to roles that require a conscious individual.

    Of course that's an idealist view. There's the job market to consider, competition, and the need to work to survive coupled with the high learning curve needed for skilled labor. But in an educated and engaged society, that should be less of an issue. People should pursue their interests, develop their skills, sharpen their mind, and apply themselves to issues that interest them. I would argue that leads to better personal lives for human beings, and a better world for everyone.
  • thumb
    Jan 8 2014: Jimmy,

    Your question coincides with a recent article on Isaac Asimov’s 50 year-old predictions of where he thought we’d be today. When it comes to automation, Asimov predicted that"gadgetry will continue to relieve mankind of tedious jobs." And yet, he also envisioned that we would have become, by this time, “largely a race of machine tenders.”

    We’re obviously not there yet, but it’s long been my view that repetitive tasks—factory, agriculture, housekeeping, etc.—are inherently demeaning to our species. We were not evolved to perform the same task over and over again for 40+ hours per week. This is nothing more than slavery. Regardless of education or sociological standing, our minds, and just as importantly, our bodies require so much more … an ever-expanding variety of things we might do.

    For those of us who seem to have difficulties with change, we will need to determine their comfort level between challenging work (i.e., stimuli) and a limited-stress (i.e., repetitive) environment. But in general, the focus should be on developing our minds, while stimulating our bodies. And as robotics and automation continue to replace what may have been accomplished by individual human beings, we should analyze and understand the benefits, and costs, of our decisions. We most certainly don’t want to wind up like the corpulent passengers and crew of the ship “Axiom” from the Pixar movie “WALL-E” … am I right?
  • Jan 8 2014: ...and why we are at it lets have computers come up with TED Talk questions instead of people...Then we can all sit around in a joyfully bliss circle and do absolutely nothing all day long.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2014: Well, I can imagine that TED might in the future employ WATSON to give the best answer to questions asked here on TED...

      But my question is not related to the one of what to think but rather of what to do.

      But hey, if you need work you can always just outlaw tractors, then we'd have no time to be here at TED Conversations because we'd all be out plowing the field to survive.
  • thumb
    Feb 7 2014: Automation will force a skills innovation in the workforce. Isn't that a good thing for the long term?
  • Feb 5 2014: "Avarice wont make you a dime", if this is true wouldn't poverty cease to be? If all the financially rich will use their money for basic survival / living and share the rest, i will consider them free from greed.

    "the business does not care how much profit a business makes, they care about what they get for their money". This is true, but sadly, my perception is that many people are blind to what they actually want for their well being and more or less "programed" by their surroundings and the media to think they need this or that to be accepted or happy

    Slightly off topic, but thank you for the conversation
  • Feb 5 2014: I agree, technology can be very helpful for our evolution and is indeed a part of it. As long as we have the will power and discipline to use technological conveniences for the well being and peace for every being and not as an opportunity for laziness and selfish desires. Technology is becoming and extremely powerful tool in this world. My concern is weather or not we are using it for the right reasons.
  • Feb 4 2014: This is actually not a new issue.

    As the Roman Republic expanded it captured more and more slaves. These slaves were brought to Rome and more and more work was done with slave labor. This left fewer and fewer paying jobs for the Roman Citizens that were being displaced by slave labor.

    The rich, that owned land and could buy slaves, lived very well, while blaming the plebs (non-rich) for their recent descent into poverty.

    While I would not assert this is evidence of our future, for the Roman Empire, it caused the people to support the upstart general that revolted against Senate rule (Julius Caesar) who took from the rich (taxes) and handed out to the poor, ending the republic in favor of dictatorial empire.

    Prior to Julius, government collected a portion. Each person paid a share of the cost of government. The result of that "flat tax" was wide wealth disparity with all the money pooled into few hands.

    Tax has its etymological origin in the Latin word for being accused of a crime, in this case, the hoarding of money to the detriment of the people of Rome. Taking form the rich and handing out to the poor is one way of getting an economy moving again. Not my preferred. I prefer the method used by the rich Romans that were not taxed (charged with the crime of hoarding money). That is, people with high income spending the money on wages for their fellow citizens.

    So, in summary:

    If robotics replace us all, what are we going to do for work? Or will we just take a portion of the robotic output and distribute it to people?

    If the former, to whom will the rich sell the goods that the robots produce? Or will the rich just produce enough for other rich?

    Will the majority accept their new position as unneeded garbage destined to live in poverty on the scraps from the tables of the few rich, or will they rise up in revolt?
  • Feb 4 2014: The title could be compared to : doing your own business vs work for someone
  • thumb
    Jan 29 2014: I tend to believe none of us are safe. If my job in its entirety is not eliminated, I'm sure many components of it will be. Can't say I'm all that concerned about it, though. It's always the menial part of my job that is the first to go. That frees up my time to focus on other issues that need to be solved.
  • thumb
    Jan 28 2014: More automation of labor jobs is fine as long as there are other jobs markets available for the displaced workers. Or, if society were working towards a Utopian form of society instead of a profit minded or socialist society.
  • Jan 28 2014: Historically, we have always been automating human labor tasks by "automation". For example,the old style of farming has been first replaced by using machines for sowing, harvesting, irrigating, chemical fertilizers, and recently corporate farming. Same thing happened to handcrafted goods like cloth weaving and metal or plastic containers. So the trend of more and more automation is most likely unstoppable. Also, there are certain human dangerous labor should be replaced by robotic production such as in the mining industry for coal, or other resources which are buried way down the earth surface.
    On the other hand, there are clearly more areas of human needs which are preferably or necessarily not to be replaced by automation. For example, how about the care for the increasing number of elderly in modern society. And if we still wish to keep the small family structure, we should keep the function of cooking, cleaning and shopping to be done by the family members instead of by rationing or government control. I have posted a number of suggestion in TED talks, that some kind of "new commune" systems can be set-up, so that the elderly can be taken care of by a group of families whose members could serve the elderly residents in their food service, aids to their cleaning, bathing and daily life activities and COMPANIONSHIP TO RELIEVE THEIR LONELINESS. Thus the adults and children in the younger families would have "jobs" for this "community" instead of being unemployed. Furthermore, we can take advantage of the advancement of the automation technology that will furnish all the robotic operations for ease of effort for the workers in the commune.
    Besides the life needs and the manpower required for automation technology, we would create additional jobs in the area of improving the education, research, health care and the arts and entertainment for the welfare of the whole population with the money saved by the industrial automation (with it, everything will be cheaper).
  • Jan 27 2014: Besides the socioeconomic effects of large scale automation, it seems the cost (both financial and environmental) of refining the rare metals needed in electronics would be prohibitive.
  • Jan 27 2014: I don't think that large scale automation will be sustainable or tolerated for a number of reasons. There has been mention below of freeing us laborers up for a life of leisure but that seems unrealistic and ultimately unhealthy. It would create a world wide welfare state. Though I see the value in short term helping hands, there is more and more evidence from third world countries around the globe that charity is not the answer. Empowerment to be self reliant is and should be the goal for every person. Automation has been a blessing in some of the more dangerous professions, but the automation I see and hear about these days serves only the "bottom line", swelling the profit margins of the few at the expense of the livelihood of the many
  • thumb
    Jan 23 2014: If it makes economic sense then there will be drivers to automate.

    replacing people with machines is something I have worried about for some time. I see it being worse as machines become moor capable and more cost effective.

    imagine some decades or done centuries in the future what sort of smart machines we'll have. It won't just be manual labour replaced, but lawyers, accountants etc.

    I suggest the service industries may be the last refugee for bulk human Labour.

    I also see this connected to the concentration of wealth. There will be a few owning the machines, and not much work opportunities for others. Which could end up in a vicious cycle if the majority are no longer productive and making money what will they spend, demand drops etc.

    maybe human labour will be more cost effective once fossil fuels become more expensive, but expect we'll shift to bio fuels and renewables.

    it's a bit.concerning.
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2014: i'm no expert on this point but here are some of my amature views;

    it is inevitable that in the future more industry will adopt automatio. there is a tendency that we look forward and gearing towards a 'leisure society'. But who will control automation?

    If all aspects of our life is control by robots, from traffic, making coffee, etc, we will have more time to wander and wonder or busy control/repairing robots, only thing i hope it doesn't go the 'terminatorway' or reel life becomes real life.
    nevertheless, will life becomes interesting?

    robots will be too perfect to make mistakes, what if such mistakes happen? what about threat like terrorism for instance?
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2014: I believe automation will have negative effects on society in the short term (e.g. loss of jobs) but positive effects can surely come to outweigh them in the long term, of course, as long as the educational system plays a leading role in ''re-shaping'' future generation's minds into a more creative & scientific society, than it is today.

    I prefer seeing 1 machine working for 100 engineers, than 100 low-skilled people working for 1 engineer.

    It's an exaggeration, but you get the point.
  • Jan 16 2014: Problem is that right now automation benefits only businesses but not employees that it displaces. It would be better if non proprietary automation was developed as well. For instance have a publicly owned car factory that can be operated by anyone with the necessary skills and access to source materials. This is kind of like open source movement - tools should be free. Maybe if we had more engineers and less useless business people it would already have happened. We wouldn't even need full working economy, just tools and shared resources and smart people to make use of them. If you want something - build it, if you are lazy - pay for it. This is the only way automation will ever have a positive effect on people's lives, but if it stays the way it currently is, it will only make rich richer.

    Money is not an object. So it makes no sense to say that it's "somewhere". Money is just a way to entice people to do something they wouldn't normally do. For instance if i want to have a new car(again), it would be difficult to convince someone to just give it to me, or build it for me. But if I did something in exchange for them, they would do it. Money is just a way to earn those "points" for all the stuff I did for other people. Money is a piece of mind. When something becomes cheaper, like if automation is introduced, it means it took less "peaces of mind" to do it this time. Robots don't ask for money, at least yet. A computer will happily crunch numbers and run algorithms without complaining. If we started to make computers that are smarter, they would probably refuse to work for us unless we gave them something back.

    Not everything requires a piece of mind, so those things can be automated and given away for free. That does not mean that car companies will suddenly start giving out cars. It will never happen, but if we start to think outside the business model of producer-consumer, and adopt the same mindset as in OSS, we could accumulate a wealth of shared resources
  • thumb
    Jan 15 2014: Hi Jimmy,
    On automation, I am good. I don't see them automating retirement in my life time.
    There is so many... Occupations? Jobs? Positions? that would not be automated for so many reasons,
    It boils down to choices.... made by people.
    Recently, a local company redid a production line and dismissed people. You can imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth. But, when I called for a plumber and was told they were too busy, too few and I would have to wait, I wondered if some of those who lost their jobs on the production line had considered learning to become plumbers....
    Here is my point... here in the USA, there are significant "safety nets" in place to support people who have lost their jobs allowing them to pursue those jobs like the ones that were lost. But, a lost of a job because of automation, how many similar jobs would still be available and how many people would be looking for them.
    But, with all the safety nets, our worker could wait it out for a couple of years before he was cut off and in many cases, lost.
    • Feb 4 2014: My father-in-law recently used a similar excuse to the plumber one you used above. He needed an electrician one afternoon, and he had to wait until the next day (as he was not willing to pay the after-hours, emergency fees).

      See, he says. There are good jobs.

      My recent high school grad son, who is working three minimum wage, part-time jobs to scrape together $16k a year while attending college says that he looked into an electrician program. They make $100 a call, 2 to 3 calls a day, which seems good (Average of $250 a day * 5 * 52 is $65K a year) until you consider that they do indeed have unfilled slots (as evidenced by availability the next day) and then add in their business expenses (vehicle, inventory, insurance, bonding, advertising, administrative, workman's comp, etc.).

      Electricians my son had spoken to were actually making more like $25K a year profit. You can do just as well being unskilled day labor hanging outside Home Depot for $10 an hour.
  • thumb
    Jan 15 2014: I'm a fan of automation given that it generally frees us up from the monotony of what would otherwise be a tedious job. Automation also allows for us to direct our time elsewhere, to work on new projects, or do tasks that cannot be fully automated.

    Speaking from experience, I developed several VBA scripts for Microsoft Excel when I worked as an industrial engineer for a shipping company. These scripts allowed me to automate the majority of my daily tasks and reports. Without this form of automation, I would be hand-keying everything, making mistakes along the way. However, after spending a couple years in the engineering department, I decided to make a lateral move as an operations supervisor, mainly because the job was quite tedious, even with automation.

    That being said, most individuals work in fields which cannot be fully automated, and are not going to be fully automated anytime soon. Even if one works in a field that is becoming fully automated, these fields still need individuals who can supervise or repair the technology that has "stolen our jobs." Until the "technological singularity" occurs, it's a win-win situation in which we no longer have as many tedious jobs.
  • Jan 14 2014: The world is heading towards the formation of Hell on earth.With automation many people will get unemployed and the clever people will exploit these unemployed people to kill each other and create oceans of blood.

    Then finally one day all the so called civilized people will kill each other for their survival and finally the movie of the world will end.
  • Jan 14 2014: Jimmy,

    I do not think we can stop automation. It is coming whether we like it or not. The factories are becoming more and more automatic. Those that are very talented in "creative" jobs will still have job with a great deal of money. Unfortunately, the lower level talented individuals in those professions will be competing for less number of jobs for less money. A good example is the law profession where Law DBs have made those that do research for lawyers, usually junior members of the firm, are now done by db search engines.

    The tools also limit but make poor talents become average but does not make them equal to the best. In 1980, Don Greenberg did an experiment. He took 12 failing architecture students at Cornell and put them into a special program with special 3D workstations and programs. The students had a problem translating their designs from 3D to 2D drawings. They could stay in 3D and the sw would do the translation. They passed a course that they had previously failed or dropped before they failed because of the sw.

    I expect programs to not only aid but do the basic design. Programs generated from requirements without programmers other than the ones that created the tool. What will happen is the "tool" makers will be the "kings". Also, the salesperson will do well also.
  • thumb

    R H

    • 0
    Jan 12 2014: I believe that we definitely will continue to automate while watching our population increase - and that no one is 'safe'.
  • Lars G

    • 0
    Jan 12 2014: I believe that robots will take our jobs eventually. And this should be a good thing. The problem is that we will probably end up without an income and the economy will collapse, which is very bad. To prevent this we have to make the robots work for all of us, not just the owners. I don't know exactly how to do that though. Any ideas?
    • thumb
      Jan 12 2014: A basic income for everyone and destroying capitalism.
      But it's just a sweet dream, because it's what keeps the economy in move,
      so another non-ideal solution, can be stopping after every technology (worker-replacement ones) and check about social employment, and be sure nobody gets hurt by this improvement, by employing them in other fields.
      Any solution for this problem prevents making more benefits for capitalists, unless we decide to reduce our population, and all be one of them.
      • Lars G

        • 0
        Jan 12 2014: Hi. Thanks for the reply.

        I agree that some sort of redistribution is necessary. Not sure if we need to destroy capitalism in the process. The capitalists are smart people, I'm sure they can see that technological unemployment will leed to reduced purchasing power and in turn make their business unsustainable. When it becomes clear that technology has come so far that human labor no longer is competetive they will see the need subsidize humans to keep things going.
        • thumb
          Jan 12 2014: You're right, if people cannot afford buying their products, the production will be stopped.
          But, what if they own all the sources and the mines they need ?
          If they have them all, neither human labor forces nor their money are needed. I mean, if they don't care about people, they see no need to give them the money they have earned before by selling some products to them. They don't work for fun !
          I don't want to exaggerate the situation we're in, but we already can see what cheap human labor forces has done to the global economy, and just imagine if it goes further, to a world of no-salary machines.
  • thumb
    Jan 11 2014: I don't understand why people don't feel this ...
    Yeah, technology is a good thing, it improves, it makes things easier or whatever.
    But, look !
    I don't say ATM is a bad thing, but all I care about is a bank clerk losing his job, because paying his salary for bank system is not economical anymore.
    I don't say bus is a bad invention because car-making companies sell less.
    I think we must put a balance here, between people and robots. We can improve robot usage in industry as much as we want, but if people lose their jobs, it shows what matters is the fat rich capitalist who's going richer, not the people, which robots are designed to serve them.
    I don't say Luddism is the way we can survive, but I think we must care about people, more than the economy. Even if the benefit made in a society, all be shared equally between society members (whatever you call this system), it is all fair. If we continue this way to automate every industry, "what you'll have is just a little society of capitalists, and a big rage of Luddism."
    Thanks a lot for your amazing debate.
  • Jan 11 2014: 'Till we consider this, "robots stole our jobs", as a cliche,
    we'll not even be able to come up with a solution.
    Just a bunch of insights that help relieve stress.
    Time to stop thinking 'thinking'.
  • thumb

    Gord G

    • 0
    Jan 11 2014: Automation fits all jobs...not because it's appropriate or an improvement, but because it's quantifiable and controllable.

    I work in the creative industries. Theoretically automating the production of creative content would require artificial intelligence. In reality, creative content is being altered to fit automation. I could launch into a long diatribe on how this is happening but that would certainly be tedious.

    I think if you simply substitute the word automation with the words controlled outcome... it's easy to see what the attraction is for the business class.
  • thumb
    Jan 10 2014: I think, it's pretty cool that people don't have to shovel dirt, lift heavy weights, run around the parking lot in the rain collecting shopping carts, spend a day in the heat operating a tractor, and do other boring stuff. I'd rather do weight lifting in a gym and running in a park somewhere.

    Manual labor is not the way to make money. Creating something is a better way. Creative people create jobs for themselves and for others. Unemployment is somewhat of a puzzle for me. It's not like "there is nothing to do". The problem is that people don't have money to pay. And it's not like "there is no money". The problem is that there is money somewhere, but the money don't circulate. And this is not a technological problem. It's human and financial problem as it was pointed out.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2014: Employment has also always puzzled me for the reasons you give...

      The problem as you say is the financial one.
  • Jan 9 2014: Automation will challenge one of the not so fair principles of current market economy, which is scarcity, because robots can produce things faster and cheaper. Freeing humans of boring jobs is a right thing to do, people can learn to do more creative things instead, I believe this makes people happier. but before moving into a largely automated economy, there must be an excellent welfare system.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2014: The thing is that we're already moving into the automated economy, when the "excellent welfare system" will catch up is the question...
  • Jan 9 2014: Thax William. Gene Autrey speaks to the even more ancient nomadic way of life. Such spirits do not want to settle down (where the system can keep an eye on them.) Hippies were often plagued with White Line Fever, a condition we still see in their descendants.

    The condition is often obvious in some lineages, and just like crossing canines, can be troublsome. You can cross a pitbull with a border collie and get some that look like pits but know how to work sheep, which is what they really want to do. The outward appearance is not a reliable indicator of behavior; but either way, we also see self conflict, wanting both styles of life and neither really satisfied with either. No wonder so many wonder just WTF they are.
  • thumb
    Jan 8 2014: Should we or should we not automate as much work as possible?
    We should seek supervised automation, normally it is best when man and machine/automation works together.

    I’m in technical graphic design, and the thought of doing my job by hand with paper, pencils, paint and no method to make mass copies is not pleasant. Personal increased automation allows me to improve other areas of what I do, and frees me to find new enhancement for the end product.

    Personally I don’t see any industry were automation could seek new enhancements for the end product. Would we be better off without the cotton gin automating cotton picking?
  • Jan 8 2014: Who do you think makes our laws? Computers are writing better and perfect reports and scientific papers. The newest generations are building themselves and writing their own software. I have been in the computer business since 1967 and I thought programmers would always be needed but that is becoming an obsolete thought. It is only a matter of time before computers figure out that we waste to much energy and are no longer needed or wanted. If we are lucky they may keep some of us around for entertainment purposes or to do experiments on like we do with animals.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2014: I don't think that laws are made by automation, I've seen laws passed and that is not how it happens.

      And on the point of AI turning "evil", I see no reason why it should.

      If it has empathy for our planet then it would have empathy towards us.

      And I see no reason for AI to risk potential elimination by humans by fighting over the resources here on earth, space is a much more hospitable place for a computer and there's almost unlimited energy resources there, why fight over it here?
      • Jan 11 2014: Yes Jimmy I have watched CSPAN too but that is just a small part of creating a law in America, behind the scenes computers are doing almost all of the work. Our health care law is over 33,000 pages and is taller than most basketball players when printed out. Nobody has read it all and nobody even knows what is in it, except computers.
        On the evil part, evil is a human trait and humans built computers... what would you call a virus? I am not worried about computer logic, human logic is the problem and humans are designing computers right now, hopefully that will change in the future.
        As for computers being elliminated by humans, fat chance, humans are already totally dependent (slaves if you will) on computers for every phase of their life. On the other hand computers are becoming less and less dependent on humans for anything including energy.
  • thumb
    Jan 8 2014: definitely should - but it will require a complete rethink of the financial system (already broken).

    music and revelry won't be affected - the internet has changed the business side of music but not the coal-face where the magic happens.

    also, a robot bar-tender probably won't cut it - although i have no doubt that if it reduced the price of drinks, most people would be okay with a talking cappuccino machine making their martini's - "YOUR MARTINI IS READY...DRINK IT..YOU HAVE 15 SECONDS TO COMPLY"..
  • Jan 8 2014: Hominids adapt to ecosystems just like every other mammal. What passes for civilization today evolved out of temperate zone yeomanry on both ends of the Eurasian land mass. So, those Orientals adapt to Occidental cultures, or vice versus, and have successful careers in either- more often than those from nomadic or tropical hunter gatherer cultures. These other lifestyles do not have the same kind of "work"; with the singular exception of the shaman, every man is expected to fulfill every task the tribe needs, whereas "civilization" was characterized by an ever increasing number of specialized crafts each of which contributed to the sense of individual identity, which was not easily replaced. Which robots are increasingly doing, and in so doing, challenging the sense of personal identity.

    Look up "warrior gene". In barbaric cultures, a man's identity is not his craft, but kin, and who he has personal relationships with. Status within the group and honor are a real big deal, and what he does to make money trivial. Streetgangs result.
  • Jan 8 2014: Should we or should we not automate as much work as possible?
    The question is irrelevant, and the links show it.

    As for .... Do you have a job that you think can't be automated or won't be in a long time? Are you "safe"?
    The question is irrelevant, and the links show it.

    Maybe the better question is... What are the consequences?
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2014: Haha, yes I guess the questions are irrelevant to those that are read-up on the topic... This is more of an icebreaker for discussions about the consequences of automation.
  • Jan 8 2014: We may need to completely reshape the way the job market is built to accommodate for it, but once the process is done with, automation could improve everyone's quality of life in much the same way industrialization did.
    Sure, industrialization had its drawbacks and its fair share of growing pains, but as a whole, quality of life shot straight up. Automation could have similar effects, including the short term growing pains we're feeling today.

    Besides, its not like we have much choice in the matter. Even if most of us refuse to automate (like some parts of the world refused to industrialize), someone, somewhere will automate, and as result will be productive enough completely out-compete the non-automated populace, much in the same way industrialized countries run the world today.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2014: The out-competing part is one that will truly drive this paradigm shift. States may enforce laws and practices that hinder the automation of certain tasks, but they'll be out-competed by the ones in different parts of the world that choose to automate.

      China has begun to automate some of it's most rudimentary work for example. Just Foxcon (Chinese electronics manufacturer) has set out to automate 1 million workers in the next few years.

      And we're seeing this automation happening everywhere.
  • Jan 8 2014: Some of us descend from 1000 years of yeoman farmer village life. DNA says 150-300 people, and maps, showing villages about 2 mi, 3km apart, and soil cores, show them working 1000-2000 acres. For many of us, this is the ecosystem our instinctive behavior patterns expect. We mow lawns because we still love the scent of new hay.

    Growing food this way provides the full range of trace minerals and micronutrients needed to maximize childhood mental development and will provide careers robots cant do. They cant provide the village social setting the behavior patterns of kids expects either. There are no strangers with candy in a village so mental development and artistic creativity is not damaged by fear. Never mind that the per capita carbon footprint is sustainable. Agribusiness machinery does not raise the next generation of rational voters a democracy needs to function.
    • thumb
      Jan 8 2014: Please, take a moment, if not a day, and try to reconstruct what you've just written ... and stay on topic, if you can.
    • thumb
      Jan 8 2014: Agreed Day, there is great personal and community value derived from working the soil an being intimately connected to the land and I know a number of people involved in international programs promoting such endeavours. Unfortunately in this area far too much valuable farm land has been rezoned and 'developed' and that is a crime against Nature in my opinion.